Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33242753›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020

Breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance; incremental cancers found at what cost?

Luke Bromley, Jennifer Xu, Su-Wen Loh, Grace Chew, Eddie Lau, Belinda Yeo

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023
    Article
  4. Critical assessment of resource waste in staging and follow-up of breast cancer.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luke BromleyAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia; the University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: luke.bromley2@austin.org.au.
Jennifer Xuthe University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, VIC, Australia.
Su-Wen LohAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Grace ChewAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Eddie LauAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Belinda YeoAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, 3084, VIC, Australia; the University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, VIC, Australia.
Austin Health · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the diagnostic parameters of breast ultrasound (US) in the setting of routine radiological surveillance after a diagnosis of breast cancer and evaluate costs of the inclusion of breast US as well as any survival benefit of US detected cases of recurrence in surveillance.

methods622 patients underwent breast cancer surgery and follow up at Austin Health from July 2009 to December 2015. Retrospective data analysis was performed to determine; diagnostic parameters, financial costs of US and survival outcomes of US detected cases of recurrence.

resultsPatients underwent 1-9 years of breast cancer surveillance, with a median of 4.24 years. 390 (62.7%) patients underwent additional breast US surveillance to mammography. 232 (38.3%) fit criteria for use of additional breast US. 199 abnormal imaging episodes occurred, leading to 16 screen detected-cases of locoregional recurrence. US alone generated 107 abnormal images and found 9 cancers. US had a sensitivity of 44.1%, specificity of 95.2% and positive predictive value of 11.7% in comparison to mammography; 20.6%, 97.4% and 9.9% respectively. US had a biopsy rate of 4.0% and lead to an incremental cancer detection rate of 0.38%. The cost of incremental cancer found was $31,463.72 AUD. Survival outcomes based on method of detection of recurrence were insignificant (p value = 0.71).

conclusionsBreast US has a sensitivity of 44.1% and detected seven recurrences that were mammographically occult. Breast US has a similar PPV to mammography in surveillance. Breast US generated considerable biopsy rates and costs. Survival analysis was not able to detect any benefit of US detected cases of recurrence.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisUltrasonography, MammaryBiopsy rateBreast cancerBreast ultrasoundDiagnostic accuracyRecurrenceSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID33242753
PMCPMC7695899
OpenAlexW3104400011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.